You said:
Furthermore, one thing we must know is that Imam Ali (as) did not call to himseld because he did not want the people to apostate. So what Imam Ali (as) actually did PROTECTED Islam.
Salam,
Brother PLEASE try to ponder and reflect on your statement. If `Ali did not preach the message, then what applies to him applies to the Prophet (saw): {O Messenger (Muhammad SAW)! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message.}
`Ali's job acc to you folks IS TO GUIDE, he never did. Why would the Prophet (saw) be commanded to proclaim the message and get a guarantee of protection then the leader right after him hides that same message and never proclaims it?
Secondly, your words "`Ali did not call to him in order to PROTECT ISLAM" This means that the belief in divine infallible leaders is not necessary for having faith.
If the so called Imamah was necessary for Islam, then it needed to be preached for Islam to be "protected". However, not announcing it to "protect Islam" says a lot about this irrational belief.
Just ponder on this and don't repeat the arguments of the Shia leaders without thought.
Please ponder on the comparison with Prophet Harun (as).
[Moses] said, "O Aaron, what prevented you, when you saw them going astray, From following me? Then have you disobeyed my order?"
[Aaron] said, "O son of my mother, do not seize [me] by my beard or by my head. Indeed, I feared that you would say, 'You caused division among the Children of Israel, and you did not observe [or await] my word.' "
Imam Ali (as) - yes, he is a guide. But by calling to himself he would be doing the opposite of guiding, because according to the hadith people might become kafirs due to this. So by you saying "well he should have just guided people" - this may result in people rejected the shahada and Islam in general, thereby doing the complete opposite.
Firstly, Hujjah cannot be established on assumptions, and this contradicts the obligatory principle of Amr bil maroof wa nahi anil munkar(Enjoining good & forbidding evil). Imagine Prophet(saw) assuming that Abu Jahl will never accept his prophethood so he doesn’t gives him the Message, this would sound irrational and nonsense, because hujjah cannot be established based on assumptions. And regarding forbidding the wrong we read in Shia hadeeth that:
The messenger of Allah(saw) said: Allah bears grudge (dislikeness) for the “WEAK BELIEVER”, who doesn’t have any religion(Deen). It is asked: Who will be believer who doesn’t have any religion? Prophet(saw) said: The one who doesn’t fulfill the obligation of “Forbidding Wrong”. (Furu’al Kafi Vol. 5 Page. 59).
Shias try to counter these points by bringing up the incident of Prophet Harun(as), when Prophet Musa(as) left him with the people, and those people started worshiping a calf and didn’t listen to Harun(as). However this issue is a proof against Shia, because Harun(as) did indeed try to forbid those people from wrong and evil, to the extent that they were about to kill him. This proves that he was not only forbidding them from tongue but also protesting them as much as he could. This is evidenced in the following verses of Quran:
And Hârûn (Aaron) indeed had said to them beforehand: “O my people! You are being tried in this, and verily, your Lord is (Allâh) the Most Beneficent, so follow me and obey my order.” They said: “We will not stop worshipping it (i.e. the calf), until Mûsa (Moses) returns to us.” (Quran 20:90-91)
When Musa returned to his people, angry and sad, he said, .How bad is the thing you have done in my absence! How did you act in haste against the command of your Lord?. He dropped down the Tablets, and grabbed the head of his brother, pulling him towards himself. He (Harun) said, .My mother‘s son, the people took me as weak and were about to kill me. So do not let the enemies laugh at me, and do not count me with the wrong-doers.(Quran 7:150).
Harun(as) didn’t just assume that people will disobey him, so he needs to be silent, on the contrary Harun(as) tried hard to forbid those people from wrong and evil and invited them towards good, to the extent that they were about to kill him, as they overpowered him and found him weak.
Answer taken from
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/5-sunni-answers-to-shiapens-article-on-fadak-and-inheritance-of-prophetsaw-chapter-five/
1) In actual fact, one of the conditions of Amr bil Marouf and Nahi an Al Munkar according to our fuqaha is that it should be known that it will be effectual, otherwise the obligation is dropped.
2) It wasn't about assumptions, Imam Ali (as) knew what the consequences would be if he called for his right. Imam Ali (as) didn't want the religion of Allah and the risalah to be lost. His decision was based on circumstances.
3) The comparison between Harun (as) and Imam Ali (as) makes sense because both of them were bertrayed by their Ummah. I must also add, I have re-read Hani's book on Ali and Khilafah, and from what I have read, based on Sunni sources, Imam Ali (as) was clearly not all happy about others preceding him to the khilafa.
1. This is a preposterous claim, because guidance is ONLY from Allah. The duty of believer is to convey/remind the message. We also read in Quran;
(Muhammad), you cannot guide whomever you love, but God guides whomever He wants and knows best those who seek guidance.(Quran 28:56).
Moreover, Haroon(AS) implemented on Amr bil MAroof and Nahi an al Munkar, even though it wasn't effective, to the point that he was going to be killed. And Musa(as) didn't took it lightly thinking that stopping wouldn't have been ineffective. Rather he held the beard of Haroon(AS) and questioned him for DISOBEYING his order. And he only spared him when Haroon(AS) informed him that he did implement on the Amr bil MAroof principle in the best way. Hence, this absurd excuse of yours shows that the example of Haroon(AS) cannot be used by Shias since it is contrary to what Ali(ra) did. This example is against Shias.
2. No one is talking about armed rebellion. Even though as per some reports Ali(ra) said that he would have fought if there was any command from Prophet(saws) about Caliphate. Since you mentioned Hani's book. Let me quote from his book the words of Ali(ra). { Ali said: I would have fought them with my bare hands if I found no weapon.} But what I'm talking about is that he should have atleast verbally reminded people about his alleged appointment. And done his duty of Amr bil Maroof.
3. Read the answer for point 1.
Is amr bil maroof & nahi an al munkar still wajib according to Sunnis if the person will leave his sin and go on to a bigger evil as a result? Because I remember seeing a Salafi aalim saying in this case one should not do it.
This is an exceptional case, which is applicable only when there is certainty through experience that the sinner will indulge in a major sin compared to the former one, as the person had experienced.
And as for the Salafi aalim you mention then it is possible that Salafi aalim, himself experienced this situation when he tried to implement amr bin maroof, based on which he formed that opinion. Most, likely you are talking about Ibn Taymiyyah's Fatwa on the Tatar soldiers drinking alcohol.
Well, there you go. That should end this discussion about Imam Ali (as) then, who knew that the ummah would turn to a bigger evil.
Not at all, Ali(ra) never experienced any greater evil in order chose a lesser evil. This assumption of yours is baatil. On the contrary Ali(ra) believed that he would have fought if Prophet(saws) have given a command regarding Caliphate, which again exposes the incorrectness of your assumption.
Anyways, what needs to be reminded that, the example of Haroon(as) is actually against Shias, which they didn't realize, so bringing up his example actually weakens the Shia claim.
The Imam (as) does not need to experience it, he has special ilm. He knows what will happen if he does do nahi an al munkar.
This excuse is as preposterous as the excuse of Taqiyyah. On contrary we find that Ali(ra) himself beliieved that he would have fought, had it been that Prophet(SAWS) had ordered anything about Caliphate. And the actions of Ansar regarding Saqifa and their discussions itself is a proof that no one was appointed by Prophet(saws).
Anyways the point is that the preposterous excuse you made goes against the Sunnah of Haroon(as), hence next time don't use he example of Haroon(as) as its against SHiism.
You're sadly changing the topic my friend. The basis of this topic was the assumption (or in my case, belief) that the Prophet had appointed a successor. Not whether he appointed one or not.
Now, you say the duty of Imam Ali (as) - had he indeed been chosen by Allah to lead the Ummah after the Prophet's death - is that he should do nahi an al munkar because his right was snatched off him and the Ummah became deviant, and he just stood there and watched. Therefore, he did not fulfill his obligation.
My reply to this shubha is that nahi an al munkar is dropped according to many Sunnis if it will lead to a bigger evil coming from the sinner.
You said Imam Ali (as) has to experience this first, and I replied that Imam Ali (as) already knows.
As for Prophet Harun (as) - I can say that I have moved on from that argument, as I find that this argument has many shortcomings in this discussions.
No, I'm not changing the topic, nor do I intend to, because I mentioned about Prophet(SAWS) not appointing any Caliph as an additional point. And this came in because YOU mentioned about reading Hani's book and Ali(ra) being unhappy due to other Khulafa preceding him, hence I brought up the quote of Ali(ra) from the same book. So you see it was a follow up from my side.
Infact, The point from where OUR DISCUSSION began was regarding you using the example of Harun(as) and me refuting it, and when I repeatedly reminded you about this ORIGINAL ISSUE on which OUR DISCUSSION was going on, you chose to blame me of changing the topic, which is reactionary. Anyways since you admit that this main topic on which our discussion began, your argument has shortcomings then, that is a fair excuse.
Lastly, as for the excuse that Ali(ra) already knew due to special ilm, then I say that you know it very well that it is a very weak and unacademic excuse to be used in a discussion. If anything as such was real then Prophet(SAWS) would have never given the dawah to Mushrikeen of Makkah, especially the enemies of Islam, such as Abu Jahl and Co, due whom Muslims faced a very hard time which even cost lost of lives for some early Muslims. Infact, (As per your perspective) by remaining silent Ali(ra) has given Sunnis(which includes majority of companions of Ali(ra)] an excuse wherein they cannot be held responsible for disbelieving in his alleged divine appointment, and believing in the Caliphate of three Caliphs before him.
86 Replies
16083 Views
September 13, 2014, 12:53:01 AM